Check My IP editorial policy
See how Check My IP selects distinct topics, verifies technical claims, cites primary sources, reviews content, records meaningful updates, and corrects errors.
People first, query second
We publish only when a page completes a distinct task or answers a distinct networking question. Keyword variations do not earn separate pages. Closely overlapping topics are consolidated, and redirects are used only when an older address must be preserved.
Sources and verification
Technical guides prefer RFCs, standards bodies, registries, government security agencies, and direct product documentation. Public measurements are described with their scope and uncertainty. A source link supports the reader’s inspection; it does not replace editorial explanation.
Originality and automation
Site copy is written for this publication and is not imported, paraphrased, or stitched from another website. Automation may help with tests, formatting, or asset production, but it does not make publication decisions. A responsible editor reviews utility claims, page intent, citations, links, and visible dates.
Commercial boundaries
No third party may publish pages to borrow this domain’s search reputation. Future sponsorships must be conspicuous, relevant to the network and privacy scope, editorially reviewed, and linked with the appropriate sponsored attribute. Rankings are never sold.
Corrections and dates
Readers can report errors through the contact page. The review date changes only after a meaningful factual or instructional review. We do not refresh dates solely to make old material look new.
From topic selection to a maintained technical guide
The editorial standard begins with a distinct reader task, not a keyword variation or publication quota. A page must define its scope, explain the mechanism in original language, state the limits of the evidence, connect to relevant tools and guides, and use sources that control or directly support important claims. Existing URLs are maintained and overlapping ideas are consolidated so the library remains navigable rather than expanding through doorway pages.
Select a question with an independent answer
A proposed guide should change what a reader can understand or do. IPv4 versus IPv6, public versus private scope, DNS resolution, subnet notation, connection measurements, and VPN visibility have different mechanisms and decisions, so each supports a separate treatment. A spelling change, reordered phrase, city name, or thin use case does not. When two pages substantially answer the same question, the stronger route absorbs the useful material and the old route redirects. Navigation and body links are updated so readers reach the canonical explanation.
Verify claims at the right authority
Protocol definitions are checked against RFCs and standards. Address administration and routing claims prefer registries and network authorities. Security recommendations prefer current government, standards, or direct platform guidance. An external source supports a claim but does not replace the publication’s own explanation. Editors check that the destination still resolves, that the cited material supports the nearby statement, and that a conclusion does not exceed it. Estimates and database labels are identified as enrichment rather than presented as properties encoded inside an address.
Write for inspection and extraction
Each page uses one descriptive H1 followed by question-led H2 and H3 sections, direct answer passages, tables where exact distinctions matter, and text equivalents for meaningful visuals. Titles and descriptions describe the actual page rather than repeating a phrase. Internal links appear in explanatory context and use labels that reveal the destination. Structured data must match visible content and does not create facts absent from the page. Concise answer formatting helps readers, assistive technology, featured results, and AI systems without changing the factual standard.
Review, correct, and date honestly
A meaningful review rechecks the explanation, code behavior where applicable, cited sources, internal destinations, and stated limitations. That work can justify a new visible modified date. Typography, cache changes, and automatic date rotation do not. Confirmed errors are corrected at the existing URL, and material boundaries are clarified rather than hidden. Automation may assist testing, formatting, and asset production, but an accountable editor decides what is published. Sponsorship cannot purchase a ranking or use this domain to host unrelated third-party reputation content.
A practical reading sequence
| Starting point | Reasonable use | Important boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol claim | RFC or standards body | Definition and current status |
| Operational guidance | Agency or direct documentation | Scope, currency, applicability |
| Site observation | Reproducible application behavior | Input, vantage point, time, limit |
Quality checks cover both source and rendered output. Automated tests inspect response status, canonical destinations, sitemap membership, crawler directives, metadata uniqueness, heading structure, internal links, structured-data syntax, image attributes, and minimum content depth. Similarity checks flag pages whose main content has converged even when titles differ. Automation identifies risk; editorial review decides whether shared language is necessary interface guidance or whether the page needs a genuinely distinct explanation.
Images follow the same evidence standard. Filenames describe their role, dimensions are declared to stabilize layout, alternatives explain meaningful content, and decorative graphics stay out of the accessibility tree. Compression should preserve enough detail for the intended display without forcing readers to download an oversized source. A visual chart must label qualitative sequences honestly and cannot present invented percentages as measured data.